JUDGMENT 1. 1. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Shambhupura on 27.12.2000 with allegation that the petitioner, a mine operator with assistance of certain other persons, undertook a powerful explosion that caused heavy losses to the property situated in nearby village. On completion of the investigation, Officerincharge of the Police Station, forwarded to the competent Magistrate a report in accordance with the provisions of Section 173 (2) Criminal Procedure Code with allegation of the Commission of offences punishable under Sections 286 and 336 Indian Penal Code. 2 2. An application supported by an affidavit sworn in by the officer-incharge, Police Station, Shambhupura was also filed seeking condonation of delay in filing police report and to take cognizance of the offences. As per the prosecution, the delay occurred as the record of the case was sent to the CID, wherefrom it was received on 18.10.2003 and soon thereafter the report was filed on 22.12.2003. 3. The delay occurred was condoned by the Magistrate on 3.8.2004, and a revision petition against that was also dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Chittorgarh vide order dated 29.8.2005 with observation that the prosecution has appropriately explained the delay, thus, the Judicial Magistrate rightly condoned the same in the interest of justice. Being aggrieved by the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and also the Judicial Magistrate, this misc. petition as per provisions of Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is preferred. 4. It is contended by Shri Mukesh Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the provisions of Section 468(2)(b) Criminal Procedure Code no cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 336 and 268 Indian Penal Code could have been taken by the competent court, after the lapse of one year from the date of lodging FIR, without having adequate explanation and in the instant matter no such explanation exist. 5. Per contra, it is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that the Judicial Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code deem it appropriate in interest of justice and only after getting satisfied with the explanation forwarded by the prosecution, condoned the delay. The revisional court also affirmed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, therefore, no further interference is desirable. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The revisional court also affirmed the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, therefore, no further interference is desirable. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. The offence described under Section 286 Indian Penal Code is a magistrate triable offence with maximum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months. The offence described under Section 336 Indian Penal Code, too is magistrate triable with maximum punishment of three months imprisonment or fine of Rs. 250/- or both. Looking to the term of imprisonment, cognizance for the offences aforesaid is required to be taken within a period of one year from the date of offence or other contingencies prescribed under Section 469 Criminal Procedure Code In the instant case the limitation given under Section 468 Criminal Procedure Code came to an end on 27.12.2001, but the police report was filed and cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate on 3.8.2004, after condoning delay as per provisions of Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code The reason extended by the prosecution for causing delay in filing the report was that the entire record of the case was remitted to CID, wherefrom the same was returned and received at police station concerned on 18.10.2003. Subsequent thereto, the report was filed on 27.12.2003. Learned Magistrate found the reason aforesaid sufficient to condone delay. Necessary discussion made by the Magistrate in this regard reads as follow:- " pkyku izLrqr djrs le; Fkkukf/kdkjh 'kEHkqiqjk us ,d vkosnu i= e; 'kiFk i= bu rF;ksa ds lkFk izLrqr fd;k fd ?kVuk 27&12&2000 dh gSA mlds i'pkr~@i=koyh lh vkbZ Mh esa vuqla/kku gsrq pyh xbZ FkhA tks iqu% fnukad 18&10&2003 dks urhtk is'k djus gsrq Fkkus ij izkIr gqbZ o fnukad 22&12&03 dks vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) pkyku is'k fd;k tk jgkA Fkkukf/kdkjh }kjk fn, x, 'kiFk i= ls Hkh ;g Li"V gS fd eqyfteku ds fo:) pkyku is'k djus esa gqbZ nsjh dk dkj.k lh vkbZ Mh }kjk vuqla/kku fd;k tkuk gSA /kkjk 437 lh0vkj0ih0lh0 esa ;g Li"V :i ls vafdr gS fd ifjlhek dky ds volku ds i'pkr~ Hkh izlaKku fy;k tkrk gSA vkSj pwafd bl izdj.k dh i=koyh vuqla/kku gsrq lh vkbZ Mh xbZ gqbZ Fkh blfy, le; yxkA tks pkyku izLrqr djus esa gqbZ nsjh dk ,d mfpr dkj.k gSA fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa esa yxs le; dk viotZu fd;k tk ldrk gSA " 8. Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code empowers a court competent to take cognizance of an offence even after expiry of period of limitation in two eventualities and those are - (1)- if the court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained, or; (2)- it is necessary to condone the delay in the interest of justice. 9. In the first eventuality the Court is required to satisfy itself from the available facts and circumstances for condonation of delay. In the present case the only fact taken into consideration is that the record of the case was sent to CID and therefore, the police report was filed at belated stage. The CID is also an Investigating Agency and therefore, a diligent investigation from it is also required. The remittance of record to CID itself cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. The prosecution is required to extend a proper and adequate reason for an inordinate delay in completion of investigation and filing the police report, on basis of which, demand for taking cognizance for the offence is made. True it is, the condonation of delay desired under Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code is not required to be considered in the stringent manner as that is required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but a proper and satisfactory explanation is certainly desirable. The investigating agency could have explained delay in completion of investigation by citing the facts those were causing hurdle or were impediment in completion of the investigation, but a very broad and vague assertion that the record was lying with CID is not at all a satisfactory explanation to cause an inordinate delay and to demand condonation of the same as per provisions of Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code The satisfaction of the competent court is always required to be based on definite plausible facts and not mere on irrelevant averments. In the instant matter, the competent court founded its satisfaction absolutely on irrelevant consideration, as such, the satisfaction so arrived is bad. 10. It is also relevant to observe that the court competent could have taken cognizance by condoning the delay, even without recording its satisfaction on the facts and circumstances of the case, by reaching at the conclusion that making of cognizance was necessary in the interest of justice. 10. It is also relevant to observe that the court competent could have taken cognizance by condoning the delay, even without recording its satisfaction on the facts and circumstances of the case, by reaching at the conclusion that making of cognizance was necessary in the interest of justice. For that there may be several eventualities, but the competent court while doing so should record its reasons for arriving on the conclusion that making of cognizance was necessary in the interest of justice. In the case in hand, the competent court has not at all considered the issue of condonation of delay from this aspect also. 7 11. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution is required to submit its report as per provisions of Section 173 Criminal Procedure Code as expeditiously as possible after completion of the investigation, but in the instant matter nothing in the application for condonation of delay is said as to when the entire investigation was completed. The assertion in the application is that the FIR was lodged on 27.12.2000, the record was remitted to the CID in the month of March, 2001 and the same was received by the police station on 18.10.2003 and also that the report was filed on 22.12.2003. The factum of completion of the investigation is conspicuously absent. I failed to understand as to why the police report was not filed for a period of more than two months even after receiving record from the CID. All the facts observed above, were not taken into consideration either by Judicial Magistrate or by learned Additional Sessions Judge. The orders impugned, therefore, are bad and deserve to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is allowed. The order impugned dated 3.8.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh is quashed. Consequently, revisional order too is quashed.Petition allowed. *******